|
Post by sophie on Oct 24, 2017 16:30:05 GMT -5
When it come to insulin, all insulins should be covered by every company that is going to set up shop and claim to be a health insurance company, collect money from people, and regulate coverage on medicines for a human. Something required by the body, such as insulin, shouldn't be up for debate. This goes for all insulins that are FDA approved, IMO. How would you feel if someone preferred brand only drugs and not generics? Would you similarly acquiesce simply based on preference? Or would you tell them to take the generic since it is essentially the same thing and for a much cheaper price? The problem is that with a pandemic disease like diabetes, you cannot give the option to everyone and keep prices low for everyone else. This is the unfortunate part of insurance. Everyone wants the best care but wants to pay the least for it. Good care is expensive. No one is stopping anyone from accessing Afrezza. They simply do not want to pay the premium for it. They want to share the cost of a better drug with other people- people who may not want to pay that added premium for their care. I think what you're failing to see is the other side of the same coin of your argument. Your argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to pay extra money for something that I need" whereas I would rebut, "neither should I" I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of you getting better care than what is necessary for your health. You would live a long and fruitful life on the other insulins that are available. If you would like to have a better quality of life, that is your prerogative. But you should have to pay for it, not me. At the end of the day, coverage depends on the contracted rate that MNKD agrees to do business with PBMs. More favorable contracts earn lower copays. Insurance companies would much rather spend $10 for a medication than spend $40 for one that will produce fairly similar results. That is not unethical. It is good business. As much as it pains me to say it, insurance companies must think with a business mind, not a compassionate mind. There needs to be far more black and white than gray because there are simply too many exceptions to make with gray and you would waste far more resources creating that gray space than keeping black and white more affordable for everyone else. Let's not conflate arguing points here 1. Afrezza is superior to other RAAs 2. The FDA views Afrezza as similar to RAAs. You and I both believe Afrezza to be a superior product. The FDA has allowed for more separation, but for the metrics that currently matter most (A1c), it still appears to be equal. I'm not going to get into an argument with you that Afrezza and injectables are similar. They are not. However, their effect (A1c) has yet to be distinguished in the FDA's eyes. This is not unique to Afrezza. There are many, many, many drugs that have terrible coverage because there are a number of cheaper alternatives that provide similar results. And, I think if you're honest, you would not want to pay a premium for someone else's medicine just because they wanted it when they would have similar therapeutic effects on a much cheaper medication. I have said this so many times, but for whatever reason the same arguments perpetuate- The onus for superiority is on the drug manufacturer. It is not the FDA's fault, per say, that Afrezza has crappy insurance coverage. It is MNKD's fault for not conducting trials that show superiority. Like it or not, medicine is evidence based and conservative. That much will not change as long as there is a governing body over medications.
|
|
|
Post by zuegirdor on Oct 24, 2017 16:42:46 GMT -5
When it come to insulin, all insulins should be covered by every company that is going to set up shop and claim to be a health insurance company, collect money from people, and regulate coverage on medicines for a human. Something required by the body, such as insulin, shouldn't be up for debate. This goes for all insulins that are FDA approved, IMO. How would you feel if someone preferred brand only drugs and not generics? Would you similarly acquiesce simply based on preference? Or would you tell them to take the generic since it is essentially the same thing and for a much cheaper price? The problem is that with a pandemic disease like diabetes, you cannot give the option to everyone and keep prices low for everyone else. This is the unfortunate part of insurance. Everyone wants the best care but wants to pay the least for it. Good care is expensive. No one is stopping anyone from accessing Afrezza. They simply do not want to pay the premium for it. They want to share the cost of a better drug with other people- people who may not want to pay that added premium for their care. I think what you're failing to see is the other side of the same coin of your argument. Your argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to pay extra money for something that I need" whereas I would rebut, "neither should I" I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of you getting better care than what is necessary for your health. You would live a long and fruitful life on the other insulins that are available. If you would like to have a better quality of life, that is your prerogative. But you should have to pay for it, not me. At the end of the day, coverage depends on the contracted rate that MNKD agrees to do business with PBMs. More favorable contracts earn lower copays. Insurance companies would much rather spend $10 for a medication than spend $40 for one that will produce fairly similar results. That is not unethical. It is good business. As much as it pains me to say it, insurance companies must think with a business mind, not a compassionate mind. There needs to be far more black and white than gray because there are simply too many exceptions to make with gray and you would waste far more resources creating that gray space than keeping black and white more affordable for everyone else. Let's not conflate arguing points here 1. Afrezza is superior to other RAAs 2. The FDA views Afrezza as similar to RAAs. You and I both believe Afrezza to be a superior product. The FDA has allowed for more separation, but for the metrics that currently matter most (A1c), it still appears to be equal. I'm not going to get into an argument with you that Afrezza and injectables are similar. They are not. However, their effect (A1c) has yet to be distinguished in the FDA's eyes. This is not unique to Afrezza. There are many, many, many drugs that have terrible coverage because there are a number of cheaper alternatives that provide similar results. And, I think if you're honest, you would not want to pay a premium for someone else's medicine just because they wanted it when they would have similar therapeutic effects on a much cheaper medication. I have said this so many times, but for whatever reason the same arguments perpetuate- The onus for superiority is on the drug manufacturer. It is not the FDA's fault, per say, that Afrezza has crappy insurance coverage. It is MNKD's fault for not conducting trials that show superiority. Like it or not, medicine is evidence based and conservative. That much will not change as long as there is a governing body over medications. Superior how exactly? You mean the way people REALLY eat? Spontaneously? Not injecting a half hour before the meal and using sugar substitutes to reduce risk of over covering for large carb meals? You mean being able to eat a big meal and go for a walk immediately afterwards without worrying about going hypo? They should trial the above meal choice factors with an RAA comparator. Because another very important and real issue is mental health. Anything that relieves the diabetic's burden is worth the price. Blood sugar management fatigue kills and maims too! The medical establishment may resist Afrezza because superiority is not as simple a concept as we wish it to be. diabetics are people and people vary in their ability to deal with complexity. Standard of care is a lie when there is a single therapeutic option. I don't care about all that passes for "objective rationale" if it only allows HMOs to practice medicine on a cost basis. MNKD may have its work cut out for it and may be underfunded, but that does not give a flabby FDA a free pass on how the one size fits all approach is needlessly harming those who can improve blood sugar control and health outcomes using alternative therapies, now that they are available.
|
|
|
Post by zuegirdor on Oct 24, 2017 17:10:31 GMT -5
When it come to insulin, all insulins should be covered by every company that is going to set up shop and claim to be a health insurance company, collect money from people, and regulate coverage on medicines for a human. Something required by the body, such as insulin, shouldn't be up for debate. This goes for all insulins that are FDA approved, IMO. How would you feel if someone preferred brand only drugs and not generics? Would you similarly acquiesce simply based on preference? Or would you tell them to take the generic since it is essentially the same thing and for a much cheaper price? The problem is that with a pandemic disease like diabetes, you cannot give the option to everyone and keep prices low for everyone else. This is the unfortunate part of insurance. Everyone wants the best care but wants to pay the least for it. Good care is expensive. No one is stopping anyone from accessing Afrezza. They simply do not want to pay the premium for it. They want to share the cost of a better drug with other people- people who may not want to pay that added premium for their care. I think what you're failing to see is the other side of the same coin of your argument. Your argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to pay extra money for something that I need" whereas I would rebut, "neither should I" I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of you getting better care than what is necessary for your health. You would live a long and fruitful life on the other insulins that are available. If you would like to have a better quality of life, that is your prerogative. But you should have to pay for it, not me. At the end of the day, coverage depends on the contracted rate that MNKD agrees to do business with PBMs. More favorable contracts earn lower copays. Insurance companies would much rather spend $10 for a medication than spend $40 for one that will produce fairly similar results. That is not unethical. It is good business. As much as it pains me to say it, insurance companies must think with a business mind, not a compassionate mind. There needs to be far more black and white than gray because there are simply too many exceptions to make with gray and you would waste far more resources creating that gray space than keeping black and white more affordable for everyone else. Let's not conflate arguing points here 1. Afrezza is superior to other RAAs 2. The FDA views Afrezza as similar to RAAs. You and I both believe Afrezza to be a superior product. The FDA has allowed for more separation, but for the metrics that currently matter most (A1c), it still appears to be equal. I'm not going to get into an argument with you that Afrezza and injectables are similar. They are not. However, their effect (A1c) has yet to be distinguished in the FDA's eyes. This is not unique to Afrezza. There are many, many, many drugs that have terrible coverage because there are a number of cheaper alternatives that provide similar results. And, I think if you're honest, you would not want to pay a premium for someone else's medicine just because they wanted it when they would have similar therapeutic effects on a much cheaper medication. I have said this so many times, but for whatever reason the same arguments perpetuate- The onus for superiority is on the drug manufacturer. It is not the FDA's fault, per say, that Afrezza has crappy insurance coverage. It is MNKD's fault for not conducting trials that show superiority. Like it or not, medicine is evidence based and conservative. That much will not change as long as there is a governing body over medications. "....I would rebut, "neither should I" I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of you getting better care than what is necessary for your health. You would live a long and fruitful life on the other insulins that are available. If you would like to have a better quality of life, that is your prerogative. But you should have to pay for it, not me.... " You fail to appreciate that only 30% of diabetics meet their targets. You fail to appreciate that the forgoing contradicts your assertion about the probability of long and fruitful lives for diabetics as a group. You fail to distinguish between prerogative and the acceptance of unfortunate tragedy that are not the fault of victims. I hope you are not as hard on yourself when misfortune befalls you. You utterly fail to appreciate that regardless whether you understand that a healthy nation is a wealthy one, YOU ARE PAYING FOR negative outcomes resulting from 70% of diabetics not meeting their targets. I assume you pay for healthcare? You fail...........oh never mind.
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Oct 24, 2017 17:38:06 GMT -5
How would you feel if someone preferred brand only drugs and not generics? Would you similarly acquiesce simply based on preference? Or would you tell them to take the generic since it is essentially the same thing and for a much cheaper price? The problem is that with a pandemic disease like diabetes, you cannot give the option to everyone and keep prices low for everyone else. This is the unfortunate part of insurance. Everyone wants the best care but wants to pay the least for it. Good care is expensive. No one is stopping anyone from accessing Afrezza. They simply do not want to pay the premium for it. They want to share the cost of a better drug with other people- people who may not want to pay that added premium for their care. I think what you're failing to see is the other side of the same coin of your argument. Your argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to pay extra money for something that I need" whereas I would rebut, "neither should I" I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of you getting better care than what is necessary for your health. You would live a long and fruitful life on the other insulins that are available. If you would like to have a better quality of life, that is your prerogative. But you should have to pay for it, not me. At the end of the day, coverage depends on the contracted rate that MNKD agrees to do business with PBMs. More favorable contracts earn lower copays. Insurance companies would much rather spend $10 for a medication than spend $40 for one that will produce fairly similar results. That is not unethical. It is good business. As much as it pains me to say it, insurance companies must think with a business mind, not a compassionate mind. There needs to be far more black and white than gray because there are simply too many exceptions to make with gray and you would waste far more resources creating that gray space than keeping black and white more affordable for everyone else. Let's not conflate arguing points here 1. Afrezza is superior to other RAAs 2. The FDA views Afrezza as similar to RAAs. You and I both believe Afrezza to be a superior product. The FDA has allowed for more separation, but for the metrics that currently matter most (A1c), it still appears to be equal. I'm not going to get into an argument with you that Afrezza and injectables are similar. They are not. However, their effect (A1c) has yet to be distinguished in the FDA's eyes. This is not unique to Afrezza. There are many, many, many drugs that have terrible coverage because there are a number of cheaper alternatives that provide similar results. And, I think if you're honest, you would not want to pay a premium for someone else's medicine just because they wanted it when they would have similar therapeutic effects on a much cheaper medication. I have said this so many times, but for whatever reason the same arguments perpetuate- The onus for superiority is on the drug manufacturer. It is not the FDA's fault, per say, that Afrezza has crappy insurance coverage. It is MNKD's fault for not conducting trials that show superiority. Like it or not, medicine is evidence based and conservative. That much will not change as long as there is a governing body over medications. Superior how exactly? You mean the way people REALLY eat? Spontaneously? Not injecting a half hour before the meal and using sugar substitutes to reduce risk of over covering for large carb meals? You mean being able to eat a big meal and go for a walk immediately afterwards without worrying about going hypo? They should trial the above meal choice factors with an RAA comparator. Because another very important and real issue is mental health. Anything that relieves the diabetic's burden is worth the price. Blood sugar management fatigue kills and maims too! The medical establishment may resist Afrezza because superiority is not as simple a concept as we wish it to be. diabetics are people and people vary in their ability to deal with complexity. Standard of care is a lie when there is a single therapeutic option. I don't care about all that passes for "objective rationale" if it only allows HMOs to practice medicine on a cost basis. MNKD may have its work cut out for it and may be underfunded, but that does not give a flabby FDA a free pass on how the one size fits all approach is needlessly harming those who can improve blood sugar control and health outcomes using alternative therapies, now that they are available. I think you need to do more research to understand the advantages of Afrezza from what I am reading here.
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Oct 24, 2017 17:45:34 GMT -5
Superior how exactly? You mean the way people REALLY eat? Spontaneously? Not injecting a half hour before the meal and using sugar substitutes to reduce risk of over covering for large carb meals? You mean being able to eat a big meal and go for a walk immediately afterwards without worrying about going hypo? They should trial the above meal choice factors with an RAA comparator. Because another very important and real issue is mental health. Anything that relieves the diabetic's burden is worth the price. Blood sugar management fatigue kills and maims too! The medical establishment may resist Afrezza because superiority is not as simple a concept as we wish it to be. diabetics are people and people vary in their ability to deal with complexity. Standard of care is a lie when there is a single therapeutic option. I don't care about all that passes for "objective rationale" if it only allows HMOs to practice medicine on a cost basis. MNKD may have its work cut out for it and may be underfunded, but that does not give a flabby FDA a free pass on how the one size fits all approach is needlessly harming those who can improve blood sugar control and health outcomes using alternative therapies, now that they are available. I am afraid I will be unable to help you understand. I think you have lost your ability to be objective because you are too emotionally invested in this situation. The problem is that you have 2 sides of the same coin that cannot coexist. Who gets to win in that situation? Typically the ruling goes in the favor of the greater good. For whatever reason, Americans do not understand that resources are finite. Money does not grow on trees. For every person that you give a little extra money to so they can have their preference of medication, you may be taking away from someone who truly has no other choice of medication. In order to keep costs affordable for everyone, difficult decisions need to be made. Quality of life is not a right. It is a privilege. The right to live is a right. If there is a medication that can sustain life- and let's not be ridiculous here... RAA's have allowed many a diabetics to live into their 80's and beyond- it would be unethical to waste limited resources on a preference rather than a necessity. If we cannot agree on this, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I would challenge you to start a foundation to raise money for the people you speak of. Be a part of the solution. If you won't, I'm afraid you lose the privilege of complaining about the problem, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's hard for me to care about something you don't care enough about to proactively change. If all you have to offer is your voice, find the right person who needs to listen and don't stop until you do. Just realize that complaining about a problem isn't a solution.
|
|
|
Post by straightly on Oct 24, 2017 17:51:58 GMT -5
When it come to insulin, all insulins should be covered by every company that is going to set up shop and claim to be a health insurance company, collect money from people, and regulate coverage on medicines for a human. Something required by the body, such as insulin, shouldn't be up for debate. This goes for all insulins that are FDA approved, IMO. How would you feel if someone preferred brand only drugs and not generics? Would you similarly acquiesce simply based on preference? Or would you tell them to take the generic since it is essentially the same thing and for a much cheaper price? The problem is that with a pandemic disease like diabetes, you cannot give the option to everyone and keep prices low for everyone else. This is the unfortunate part of insurance. Everyone wants the best care but wants to pay the least for it. Good care is expensive. No one is stopping anyone from accessing Afrezza. They simply do not want to pay the premium for it. They want to share the cost of a better drug with other people- people who may not want to pay that added premium for their care. I think what you're failing to see is the other side of the same coin of your argument. Your argument boils down to "I shouldn't have to pay extra money for something that I need" whereas I would rebut, "neither should I" I shouldn't have to pay for the privilege of you getting better care than what is necessary for your health. You would live a long and fruitful life on the other insulins that are available. If you would like to have a better quality of life, that is your prerogative. But you should have to pay for it, not me. At the end of the day, coverage depends on the contracted rate that MNKD agrees to do business with PBMs. More favorable contracts earn lower copays. Insurance companies would much rather spend $10 for a medication than spend $40 for one that will produce fairly similar results. That is not unethical. It is good business. As much as it pains me to say it, insurance companies must think with a business mind, not a compassionate mind. There needs to be far more black and white than gray because there are simply too many exceptions to make with gray and you would waste far more resources creating that gray space than keeping black and white more affordable for everyone else. Let's not conflate arguing points here 1. Afrezza is superior to other RAAs 2. The FDA views Afrezza as similar to RAAs. You and I both believe Afrezza to be a superior product. The FDA has allowed for more separation, but for the metrics that currently matter most (A1c), it still appears to be equal. I'm not going to get into an argument with you that Afrezza and injectables are similar. They are not. However, their effect (A1c) has yet to be distinguished in the FDA's eyes. This is not unique to Afrezza. There are many, many, many drugs that have terrible coverage because there are a number of cheaper alternatives that provide similar results. And, I think if you're honest, you would not want to pay a premium for someone else's medicine just because they wanted it when they would have similar therapeutic effects on a much cheaper medication. I have said this so many times, but for whatever reason the same arguments perpetuate- The onus for superiority is on the drug manufacturer. It is not the FDA's fault, per say, that Afrezza has crappy insurance coverage. It is MNKD's fault for not conducting trials that show superiority. Like it or not, medicine is evidence based and conservative. That much will not change as long as there is a governing body over medications. "It is MNKD's fault for not conducting trials that show superiority." "The FDA views Afrezza as similar to RAAs" These are oxymoron. We almost did not even get approved by FDA because of this. That is WHY our latest label change was so important. It is true RAAs, if timed and dosed perfectly, can knock down A1C very effectively, but in reality, one cannot time and dose perfectly. We always know this and can show "superiority" in this aspect and FDA had just accepted that. It was never MNKD's fault to start with, and now FDA was convinced of Afrezza's superiority.
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Oct 24, 2017 17:55:18 GMT -5
You fail to appreciate that only 30% of diabetics meet their targets. You fail to appreciate that the forgoing contradicts your assertion about the probability of long and fruitful lives for diabetics as a group. You fail to distinguish between prerogative and the acceptance of unfortunate tragedy that are not the fault of victims. I hope you are not as hard on yourself when misfortune befalls you. You utterly fail to appreciate that regardless whether you understand that a healthy nation is a wealthy one, YOU ARE PAYING FOR negative outcomes resulting from 70% of diabetics not meeting their targets. I assume you pay for healthcare? You fail...........oh never mind. Diabetes is a horrible disease. I am sorry that your loved one suffers from it. Please do not misinterpret my words as lacking in compassion. My point is simply that you see a very small slice of the pie. You need to keep in mind that this pie is a limited resource. You cannot just go bake more when you run out. If you take more than what is necessary for one disease, you rob from another. There are people just as needy and passionate for cancer drugs. Some are are so expensive that many insurance companies don't cover treatment. Even though it's the only medication available and it's 100% necessary for life. These are difficult decisions to make. I don't know if anyone has ever played this "game" with you, but it's kind of like in Spiderman where Spiderman has to choose between saving Mary Jane and the trolley car of people. Who do you choose? 1 person or 30? Who has more inherent worth? Who gets to decide? The question I would propose to you is do you think it wiser to spend limited resources on people who have alternative therapies- who can live a long life on a "lesser" medication or would you rather give them their preference at the expense of others who may not be able to survive at all because there isn't enough money left in the system for life-saving therapies?
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Oct 24, 2017 18:00:08 GMT -5
You fail to appreciate that only 30% of diabetics meet their targets. You fail to appreciate that the forgoing contradicts your assertion about the probability of long and fruitful lives for diabetics as a group. You fail to distinguish between prerogative and the acceptance of unfortunate tragedy that are not the fault of victims. I hope you are not as hard on yourself when misfortune befalls you. You utterly fail to appreciate that regardless whether you understand that a healthy nation is a wealthy one, YOU ARE PAYING FOR negative outcomes resulting from 70% of diabetics not meeting their targets. I assume you pay for healthcare? You fail...........oh never mind. Diabetes is a horrible disease. I am sorry that your loved one suffers from it. Please do not misinterpret my words as lacking in compassion. My point is simply that you see a very small slice of the pie. You need to keep in mind that this pie is a limited resource. You cannot just go bake more when you run out. If you take more than what is necessary for one disease, you rob from another. There are people just as needy and passionate for cancer drugs. Some are are so expensive that many insurance companies don't cover treatment. Even though it's the only medication available and it's 100% necessary for life. These are difficult decisions to make. I don't know if anyone has ever played this "game" with you, but it's kind of like in Spiderman where Spiderman has to choose between saving Mary Jane and the trolley car of people. Who do you choose? 1 person or 30? Who has more inherent worth? Who gets to decide? The question I would propose to you is do you think it wiser to spend limited resources on people who have alternative therapies- who can live a long life on a "lesser" medication or would you rather give them their preference at the expense of others who may not be able to survive at all because there isn't enough money left in the system for life-saving therapies?Medicine in the USA does not work that way. It is pay to play. What life saving therapies exactly?
|
|
|
Post by zuegirdor on Oct 24, 2017 18:02:48 GMT -5
Superior how exactly? You mean the way people REALLY eat? Spontaneously? Not injecting a half hour before the meal and using sugar substitutes to reduce risk of over covering for large carb meals? You mean being able to eat a big meal and go for a walk immediately afterwards without worrying about going hypo? They should trial the above meal choice factors with an RAA comparator. Because another very important and real issue is mental health. Anything that relieves the diabetic's burden is worth the price. Blood sugar management fatigue kills and maims too! The medical establishment may resist Afrezza because superiority is not as simple a concept as we wish it to be. diabetics are people and people vary in their ability to deal with complexity. Standard of care is a lie when there is a single therapeutic option. I don't care about all that passes for "objective rationale" if it only allows HMOs to practice medicine on a cost basis. MNKD may have its work cut out for it and may be underfunded, but that does not give a flabby FDA a free pass on how the one size fits all approach is needlessly harming those who can improve blood sugar control and health outcomes using alternative therapies, now that they are available. I am afraid I will be unable to help you understand. I think you have lost your ability to be objective because you are too emotionally invested in this situation. The problem is that you have 2 sides of the same coin that cannot coexist. Who gets to win in that situation? Typically the ruling goes in the favor of the greater good. For whatever reason, Americans do not understand that resources are finite. Money does not grow on trees. For every person that you give a little extra money to so they can have their preference of medication, you may be taking away from someone who truly has no other choice of medication. In order to keep costs affordable for everyone, difficult decisions need to be made. Quality of life is not a right. It is a privilege. The right to live is a right. If there is a medication that can sustain life- and let's not be ridiculous here... RAA's have allowed many a diabetics to live into their 80's and beyond- it would be unethical to waste limited resources on a preference rather than a necessity. If we cannot agree on this, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I would challenge you to start a foundation to raise money for the people you speak of. Be a part of the solution. If you won't, I'm afraid you lose the privilege of complaining about the problem, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's hard for me to care about something you don't care enough about to proactively change. If all you have to offer is your voice, find the right person who needs to listen and don't stop until you do. Just realize that complaining about a problem isn't a solution. I may be somewhat emotional about this, but your utility as a community manager here(real or imagined) is sorely limited by your patronizing tone and apocalyptic politicizing. "In the end we are all dead" is just another way of saying "I can't be bothered with little people". In two years Afrezza will be kicking butt and available at a reasonable price over the counter. People will still suffer from diabetes, only a little less so. The social and bottom line healthcare cost of the disease will be on the way down as a result of broader acceptance. What then will you say? A few years after that, God Willing, the new Treg and Peptide therapies will be refined and we can disagree about the worth of curing diabetics until the price on those therapies comes down. Then you may be right and I will be wrong about the market for Afrezza. For now I am more than happy to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Oct 24, 2017 18:11:43 GMT -5
Diabetes is a horrible disease. I am sorry that your loved one suffers from it. Please do not misinterpret my words as lacking in compassion. My point is simply that you see a very small slice of the pie. You need to keep in mind that this pie is a limited resource. You cannot just go bake more when you run out. If you take more than what is necessary for one disease, you rob from another. There are people just as needy and passionate for cancer drugs. Some are are so expensive that many insurance companies don't cover treatment. Even though it's the only medication available and it's 100% necessary for life. These are difficult decisions to make. I don't know if anyone has ever played this "game" with you, but it's kind of like in Spiderman where Spiderman has to choose between saving Mary Jane and the trolley car of people. Who do you choose? 1 person or 30? Who has more inherent worth? Who gets to decide? The question I would propose to you is do you think it wiser to spend limited resources on people who have alternative therapies- who can live a long life on a "lesser" medication or would you rather give them their preference at the expense of others who may not be able to survive at all because there isn't enough money left in the system for life-saving therapies?Medicine in the USA does not work that way. It is pay to play. What life saving therapies exactly?
I'm not sure what you mean by pay to play? www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2017/03/30/studies-show-u-s-patients-are-being-denied-access-to-life-saving-drugs/2/#65c6bf8341fdAnd there are many more examples. It happens every day. This was one of the milder ones I dug up.
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Oct 24, 2017 18:17:59 GMT -5
A few years after that, God Willing, the new Treg and Peptide therapies will be refined and we can disagree about the worth of curing diabetics until the price on those therapies comes down. Then you may be right and I will be wrong about the market for Afrezza. For now I am more than happy to disagree. What's funny is that I might be doing more to solve the problem than you are but you're misled into thinking I'm your enemy... Sorry if I came across the wrong way. We both want the same thing. We just have different ways of dealing with the harshness of reality I guess.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Oct 24, 2017 18:19:35 GMT -5
oh, ha ha sophie, you are reading the advertisements. The PCSK9 inhibitor drug Dr. Baum described is Amgen’s Repatha. Results released at the cardiology conference showed the cholesterol drug dramatically outperforms statins. Patients treated with Repatha were 27% less likely to have a heart attack and 21% less likely to have a stroke over two years than if they had been taking statins alone.
repatha will kill you. Please feel free to ask your physician for this life saving medicine
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Oct 24, 2017 18:29:24 GMT -5
Do you prefer this one? www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/31/insurance-companies-denied-treatment-to-patients-o/I'm not sure what point you're asking me to make by having me answer your question. Are you saying that money is not a limited resource in a healthcare system? I'm just googling examples because I know how much everyone here likes sources. If you want personal testimony, I can give you some. I just figured you'd believe a link more than my story. I didn't even read the article I posted and probably should have. I don't want to post this link because we'll go down another rabbit hole about the ethics of assistant suicide or something. I'd rather stay on point. I simply provided this link to show you that these things do happen and they will probably happen with more regularity moving forward as our healthcare system becomes even more burdened when the millennials are supporting the baby boomers.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Oct 24, 2017 18:35:39 GMT -5
Do you prefer this one? www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/31/insurance-companies-denied-treatment-to-patients-o/I'm not sure what point you're asking me to make by having me answer your question. Are you saying that money is not a limited resource in a healthcare system? I'm just googling examples because I know how much everyone here likes sources. If you want personal testimony, I can give you some. I just figured you'd believe a link more than my story. I didn't even read the article I posted and probably should have. I don't want to post this link because we'll go down another rabbit hole about the ethics of assistant suicide or something. I'd rather stay on point. I simply provided this link to show you that these things do happen and they will probably happen with more regularity moving forward as our healthcare system becomes even more burdened when the millennials are supporting the baby boomers. Here in the USA medicine, the medical system is a pay to play. You didn't know that? There are all levels of health insurance policies and coverage's. Some depend on employers, some depend on wallets.
Additionally, do not believe everything you read about these life saving treatments.
Because I am a caring person, do you get flu shots?
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Oct 24, 2017 18:38:00 GMT -5
Superior how exactly? You mean the way people REALLY eat? Spontaneously? Not injecting a half hour before the meal and using sugar substitutes to reduce risk of over covering for large carb meals? You mean being able to eat a big meal and go for a walk immediately afterwards without worrying about going hypo? They should trial the above meal choice factors with an RAA comparator. Because another very important and real issue is mental health. Anything that relieves the diabetic's burden is worth the price. Blood sugar management fatigue kills and maims too! The medical establishment may resist Afrezza because superiority is not as simple a concept as we wish it to be. diabetics are people and people vary in their ability to deal with complexity. Standard of care is a lie when there is a single therapeutic option. I don't care about all that passes for "objective rationale" if it only allows HMOs to practice medicine on a cost basis. MNKD may have its work cut out for it and may be underfunded, but that does not give a flabby FDA a free pass on how the one size fits all approach is needlessly harming those who can improve blood sugar control and health outcomes using alternative therapies, now that they are available. You know, I really hate that whole pre-bolus 30 minute stuff because I don't know a single Type 1 who does it. That's not to say your son doesn't, just to say of the 20 odd Type 1s I see regularly at meetups everyone boluses at the start of the meal. Is that ideal? Maybe not but it's what we all do. I do know that if my levels are good and I pre-bolus for my meal by 30 minutes I will have a hypo. Now in the old days of regular insulin (or worse, animal insulins) you absolutely had to pre-bolus or you spent the rest of the day chasing your levels. Effectively the FDA does trial the meal choice factors. They do not control what people eat, and although they tell them when to bolus it's impossible to police. The result is reasonably close to a real world result. (Strictly you get better results because people are better behaved and supported on a trial. It's a known problem). I totally and utterly agree about the metal stress aspects of diabetes, and that kills a lot of people. It's why I want and artificial pancreas. I want the same deal everyone else has - to be able to eat what, where, and when I want and have it all dealt with. Mannkind can end this problem at any time, just do the superiority trial. Actually kill two birds with one stone and make the competitor FIasp. If it proves as sufficiently superior it will get coverage.
|
|